Précédent.ai

Mr. Speaker: I am going to respond to both of these applications and I am going to say more than perhaps the Speaker usually does on such applications. I am very conscious of the fact that the reform committee some time ago recommended that no reason should be given by the Speaker when responding to these applications. As I had to do a few days ago, I am going to give some indication of my approach to this. First, as anyone who is watching this place today knows, there is very grave concern here in this Chamber about events in the other place. Within the bounds of the rules that we have to govern us, there has been extensive comment today. The question is whether it would be appropriate to have an emergency debate today with respect to those events. I have given this very careful consideration today because I have had notice. I am inclining not to accept the applications of the two honourable Members at this time, not because this is not a serious matter, but because it is probably appropriate to see if the other place can sort out its difficulties. I am very conscious that in turning down an application for an emergency debate there must be no confusion in the minds of the public that hears the application and hears my answer that that rejection is necessarily for all time or that it ignores the seriousness of the matter raised. I know honourable Members will understand that it is not particularly easy in a situation like this for the Speaker of the House to make this ruling but I think that today, given events as they presently are, it would be appropriate to see if the other place can resolve its difficulties. I thank both honourable Members for giving me notice. I have taken their applications very seriously. F0810-e 34-2 1990-10-05. [1] Debates, October 5, 1990, p. 13871.

Guidelines: Speaker not bound to give reasons for his decision; leave not granted

Ruling Text

AI Summary

AI Analysis

AI Keywords

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords